Yes, I am. For example, Splinter Cell, the first one that was also released for the original XBox, ran at a higher resolution and faster than a GeForce 4 that I had in the past. It is far more powerful than a PS2. NFS Most Wanted would run fine on it, but without all the graphics turned on, just like a GeForce 5.

Even Half-Life 2 would run at a decent speed at 1024x768. The problem was that it would crash, not the framerate.

Hm, ok I suppose then that there are better Intel chips than I have in my laptop. The one in my laptop is just not capable of running anything more advanced than Quake 2. Half-Life 2 crashes on my laptop after a 2 minute slideshow of the intro (which runs fine on my GF4).

Quote

That is the root of one of the biggest problems in the gaming industry right now. It is so absolutely wrong. There are only a very tiny percentage of game designs that work in 3D!

Do you have any numbers to back up that statement?You might be right, if you consider the huge market for online card games, casual games etc, but I'm curious about actual numbers.

Worryingly, it's actually easier for proper studios to produce 3d games than 2d games. Good 2d artists are getting harder to find, traditional 2d animators even more so. For something like a basic run animation it's much easier to knock up a model and animate it than it is to do each frame painstakingly by hand. And if you want to change something (like the character's clothes, or the camera angle) you can keep most of your work for 3d, but for 2d you've basically got to scrap the whole lot and start again.

It's a bold move to attempt to do a full AAA 2d game these days, and I doubt we'll see anything near as good quality-wise as Odin Sphere for a loooong time.

Do you have any numbers to back up that statement?You might be right, if you consider the huge market for online card games, casual games etc, but I'm curious about actual numbers.

No numbers of course (and you know the old adage about statistics and lies etc). but you are bang on with my reasoning there when you remembered card games (and board games, etc etc etc). There are in fact so many 2D games out there they absolutely swamp 3D games in terms of numbers. It is because 3D technology has been in the ascendant for the last 10 years that it grabs all the headlines - it is basically novelty. The novelty is wearing off now and the grim financial reality of it is setting in: if you try and simulate real life you end up with an exponentially expensive toolchain as real life is bastardly complex.

The happy side effect is that this crazy powerful 3D technology makes 2D technology so utterly simple to do with barely any hard work any more. It is a crying shame nobody agreed on a simple common API for everything (eg OpenGL) which brings us back to where we were, musing about XNA.

I agree with you on one point, there is no need to be in 3D to sell games. However, I'm not sure that 2D market is as big as the 3D one and I won't develop this point but I don't think in terms of "market", I prefer speaking about potential players. I can't be absolutely sure of it but I assume that most of the players want 3D games.

Actually, the 2D market DWARFS the 3D market, period. Look at game portals, flash sites, Disney.com, Nick.com, Pogo.com, Maple Story, and on and on. The market for 2D is much bigger than 3D. However, in the console world, it is the opposite, but the number of "casual" players crushes the number of "hardcore". If you are looking at potential players, 2D is the way to do. Many 2D only games (soccer moms included) may not play 3D games, but many 3D gamers also play 2D games.

Actually, the 2D market DWARFS the 3D market, period. Look at game portals, flash sites, Disney.com, Nick.com, Pogo.com, Maple Story, and on and on. The market for 2D is much bigger than 3D. However, in the console world, it is the opposite, but the number of "casual" players crushes the number of "hardcore". If you are looking at potential players, 2D is the way to do. Many 2D only games (soccer moms included) may not play 3D games, but many 3D gamers also play 2D games.

In terms of numbers of games and players I agree, but what about the value of that market? Isn't it true that the big $$$ is still on consoles, and wouldn't that mean that in terms of monetary value the 3D market is bigger than 2D?That said, I see more and more 2D games appearing on PS3 through the Playstation Store, so it looks like Sony is more and more targetting mainstream and trying to tap into this huge 2D market. Which still reeks like a good opportunity for a PS3 JVM (*hides for cover*)

In terms of numbers of games and players I agree, but what about the value of that market? Isn't it true that the big $$$ is still on consoles, and wouldn't that mean that in terms of monetary value the 3D market is bigger than 2D?That said, I see more and more 2D games appearing on PS3 through the Playstation Store, so it looks like Sony is more and more targetting mainstream and trying to tap into this huge 2D market. Which still reeks like a good opportunity for a PS3 JVM (*hides for cover*)

Who cares? Game sales are a distraction, not a point to dwell upon. I am not paid in "game sales"; I'm paid in money.

What matters is how much REVENUE came from PC vs Console. (Actually ... how much profit, but revenue is easier to estimate accurately)

On console, there is still almost no way you can get revenue without sales (there's very little you can get without boxed sales).

On PC, most of the easy revenue is not from game sales, its from alternate revenue models. The way the market works at the moment, it wouldn't take much to change for the *majority* of the revenue to come from non-sales.

* blahblahblahh innocently wonders how much you can deflate the PC games market by conveniently removing the subscriptions from the 10 million WoW players, the 1 million Runescape players, million Lineage players, million Lineage2 players, etc (http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html for a back-of-envelope estimate)

Who cares? Game sales are a distraction, not a point to dwell upon. I am not paid in "game sales"; I'm paid in money.

What matters is how much REVENUE came from PC vs Console. (Actually ... how much profit, but revenue is easier to estimate accurately)

On console, there is still almost no way you can get revenue without sales (there's very little you can get without boxed sales).

On PC, most of the easy revenue is not from game sales, its from alternate revenue models. The way the market works at the moment, it wouldn't take much to change for the *majority* of the revenue to come from non-sales.

* blahblahblahh innocently wonders how much you can deflate the PC games market by conveniently removing the subscriptions from the 10 million WoW players, the 1 million Runescape players, million Lineage players, million Lineage2 players, etc (http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html for a back-of-envelope estimate)

That's a good point.Also, reading those ESA reports again, it actually looks like the numbers from ESA (esp. that 9,5%) are probably just a small part of the whole story: The ESA seems to represent only a selection of the gaming industry (just look at the list of companies that are part of the ESA).

In the company I work for, 100% of the profits come from PC games, but we've never ever sold a single copy. Or, you could argue, we sell very very many copies, far more than most "traditional" (or whatever you want to call them) games ever do, but I somehow doubt we're included in any game sale statistics.

As an added bonus, it doesn't take us two years and 50 people to develop a game.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org